IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1903.08028.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

State-Building through Public Land Disposal? An Application of Matrix Completion for Counterfactual Prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Poulos

Abstract

This paper examines how homestead policies, which opened vast frontier lands for settlement, influenced the development of American frontier states. It uses a treatment propensity-weighted matrix completion model to estimate the counterfactual size of these states without homesteading. In simulation studies, the method shows lower bias and variance than other estimators, particularly in higher complexity scenarios. The empirical analysis reveals that homestead policies significantly and persistently reduced state government expenditure and revenue. These findings align with continuous difference-in-differences estimates using 1.46 million land patent records. This study's extension of the matrix completion method to include propensity score weighting for causal effect estimation in panel data, especially in staggered treatment contexts, enhances policy evaluation by improving the precision of long-term policy impact assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Poulos, 2019. "State-Building through Public Land Disposal? An Application of Matrix Completion for Counterfactual Prediction," Papers 1903.08028, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1903.08028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.08028
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engerman, Stanley L. & Sokoloff, Kenneth L., 2005. "The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 891-921, December.
    2. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2009. "The Origins of State Capacity: Property Rights, Taxation, and Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1218-1244, September.
    3. Oded Galor & Omer Moav & Dietrich Vollrath, 2005. "Inequality in Landownership, the Emergence of Human-Capital Promoting Institutions, and the Great Divergence," Working Papers 2005-03, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    4. Murtazashvili,Ilia, 2013. "The Political Economy of the American Frontier," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107019126.
    5. Oded Galor & Omer Moav & Dietrich Vollrath, 2009. "Inequality in Landownership, the Emergence of Human-Capital Promoting Institutions, and the Great Divergence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 143-179.
    6. Rodney Ramcharan, 2010. "Inequality and Redistribution: Evidence from U.S. Counties and States, 1890-1930," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(4), pages 729-744, November.
    7. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2022. "Design-based analysis in Difference-In-Differences settings with staggered adoption," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 62-79.
    8. Camilo García-Jimeno & James A. Robinson, 2008. "The Myth of the Frontier," NBER Chapters, in: Understanding Long-Run Economic Growth: Geography, Institutions, and the Knowledge Economy, pages 49-88, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Vollrath, Dietrich, 2013. "Inequality and school funding in the rural United States, 1890," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 267-284.
    10. Victor Chernozhukov & Kaspar Wüthrich & Yinchu Zhu, 2021. "An Exact and Robust Conformal Inference Method for Counterfactual and Synthetic Controls," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 116(536), pages 1849-1864, October.
    11. Alberto Abadie & Javier Gardeazabal, 2003. "The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 113-132, March.
    12. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2008. "Persistence of Power, Elites, and Institutions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 267-293, March.
    13. Nikolay Doudchenko & Guido W. Imbens, 2016. "Balancing, Regression, Difference-In-Differences and Synthetic Control Methods: A Synthesis," NBER Working Papers 22791, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    15. Allen, Douglas W, 1991. "Homesteading and Property Rights; or, "How the West Was Really Won."," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23, April.
    16. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    17. Ansell,Ben W. & Samuels,David J., 2015. "Inequality and Democratization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521168793.
    18. Dimitris Politis & Halbert White, 2004. "Automatic Block-Length Selection for the Dependent Bootstrap," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 53-70.
    19. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    20. Atack, Jeremy, 2013. "On the Use of Geographic Information Systems in Economic History: The American Transportation Revolution Revisited," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(2), pages 313-338, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jason Poulos & Shuxi Zeng, 2021. "RNN‐based counterfactual prediction, with an application to homestead policy and public schooling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1124-1139, August.
    2. Lea Bottmer & Guido Imbens & Jann Spiess & Merrill Warnick, 2021. "A Design-Based Perspective on Synthetic Control Methods," Papers 2101.09398, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    3. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido Imbens, 2023. "Causal Models for Longitudinal and Panel Data: A Survey," Papers 2311.15458, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    4. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Susan Athey & David A. Hirshberg & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2021. "Synthetic Difference-in-Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4088-4118, December.
    5. Dennis Shen & Peng Ding & Jasjeet Sekhon & Bin Yu, 2022. "Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data," Papers 2207.14481, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    6. Billy Ferguson & Brad Ross, 2020. "Assessing the Sensitivity of Synthetic Control Treatment Effect Estimates to Misspecification Error," Papers 2012.15367, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    7. Susan Athey & Mohsen Bayati & Nikolay Doudchenko & Guido Imbens & Khashayar Khosravi, 2021. "Matrix Completion Methods for Causal Panel Data Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 116(536), pages 1716-1730, October.
    8. Viviano, Davide & Bradic, Jelena, 2023. "Synthetic Learner: Model-free inference on treatments over time," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 691-713.
    9. Nicolaj N. Mühlbach, 2020. "Tree-based Synthetic Control Methods: Consequences of moving the US Embassy," CREATES Research Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    10. Bruno Ferman & Cristine Pinto & Vitor Possebom, 2020. "Cherry Picking with Synthetic Controls," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 510-532, March.
    11. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2019. "Synthetic learner: model-free inference on treatments over time," Papers 1904.01490, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    12. Bertocchi, Graziella & Dimico, Arcangelo, 2014. "Slavery, education, and inequality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 197-209.
    13. Peter Backus & Thien Nguyen, 2021. "The Effect of the Sex Buyer Law on the Market for Sex, Sexual Health and Sexual Violence," Economics Discussion Paper Series 2106, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    14. Damon Jones & Ioana Marinescu, 2022. "The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 315-340, May.
    15. Jason Poulos & Andrea Albanese & Andrea Mercatanti & Fan Li, 2021. "Retrospective causal inference via matrix completion, with an evaluation of the effect of European integration on cross-border employment," Papers 2106.00788, arXiv.org.
    16. Roth, Jonathan & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Bilinski, Alyssa & Poe, John, 2023. "What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 2218-2244.
    17. Vitantonio Mariella, 2023. "Landownership concentration and human capital accumulation in post-unification Italy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 1695-1764, July.
    18. Ferman, Bruno, 2021. "Matching estimators with few treated and many control observations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 295-307.
    19. Bruno Ferman & Cristine Pinto, 2021. "Synthetic controls with imperfect pretreatment fit," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(4), pages 1197-1221, November.
    20. Victor Chernozhukov & Kaspar Wüthrich & Yinchu Zhu, 2019. "Inference on average treatment effects in aggregate panel data settings," CeMMAP working papers CWP32/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1903.08028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.